"Understanding"
the Passion of The Christby
John
Jakubczyk, Esq.
25 March 2004

A
review that explains much of the film's symbolism that the average
viewer may not have grasped.

We draw from our
experience when we attempt to understand something that touches
our senses. Our lives are built upon these experiences and they
enlighten or prejudice us when we encounter new and perhaps
different expressions of old themes. For some the mere reminder
of a certain subject will trigger memories or reactions that
are more visceral than reflective. For others, the event can
be an awakening of a new chapter in their life.

So
it can be with an event such as viewing the movie, The Passion
of the Christ.

Many are finding
it a “tool” to help deepen their faith. Some find
the movie appalling because of the violence or the subject matter.
There are those who, having never been confronted with the Christian
salvation story, are dazed and confused. Many of those who have
the scars of anti-Semitic hatred etched in their lives are fearful
of that demon being released from the depths of hell. As a result,
these individuals may be willing to consider the entire Christian
message suspect. It especially bothers them when a celebrity,
whose elderly father espouses some rather bizarre views of history,
produced the movie. It should be noted for the record that despite
opinions to the contrary, the son does not embrace those same
views.

Further, it is interesting
that most of those who are devout Jews apparently do not have
as much of a problem with The Passion as their secular counterparts.
Granted, some observant Jews are concerned by the film and their
comments draw from their experiences. However, most of the complaints
by secularists, Jew and Gentile alike, seem to attack the film’s
message and its relation to the “Christian” world-view.
This view places Christ at the center of human history. Most
people who endorse the so-called “Enlightenment”
do not like the notion of Jesus Christ as the “Lord”
of history. This may be where the real source of objection to
the movie derives its philosophical underpinnings. After all,
what if Jesus is the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Old
Testament? What of the notion that humankind needed a redeemer?
If Jesus died for our sins, then we are all sinners. If we all
are sinners, then each one of us needs a Redeemer. It means
that man is not the “end-all-be-all” or the “center”
of the all that is. It also means that we are special and unique
and that God wants a relationship with us. It means there are
absolutes and standards after all. A lot of people do not want
to believe in such things.

So how does all
of this relate to this movie? First of all, the movie is more
than just a film. The producer draws from a tradition where
art is utilized to remind us of central tenets of the Christian
faith. Throughout the first millennium art was used to present
the mysteries of Christ’s passion and death. The Stations
of the Cross are a major example of this art. The Church used
the art as a tool for meditation and prayer. The thousands of
paintings of the crucifixion throughout the Middle Ages are
further testimony of the power of art to move the believer toward
a deeper relationship with God. How is the movie, The Passion
of the Christ, any different?

As a Catholic, I
could deeply appreciate the film as a moving “Via Dolorosa”
or “Way of the Cross.” I was drawn into the meditation
on the sufferings of Our Lord. I could appreciate the means
by which the artist “painted” his celluloid canvas
and drew from both the Old and New Testament in both words and
symbols throughout the film. I could understand the flashbacks
to the Last Supper while He was being raised on the cross. The
scene where the bread is placed before Him in the meal, followed
by the stripping on Calvary, was so powerful as it brought home
the passage where Christ tells His followers that He is the
Bread of Life. The remainder of the scene has Him offering His
body and Blood at the Last Supper in the flashback while He
is being raised up on the cross. The imagery of the Sacrament
reflects the relationship between the sacrifice on the cross
and the Eucharist. There is a reason why the Church refers to
the liturgy as “the Sacrifice of the Mass.” The
film brings this point home to the viewer.

Gibson also draws
upon the close relationship between Mary and Jesus. There she
is at all of the critical points of His Passion, suffering in
a way that only a mother can suffer, and yet somehow aware that
the redemption of mankind was at hand. The movie is at times
seen from her eyes and we are invited to become a part of this
deep love between a mother and her son. Especially powerful
is the meeting between Mary and Jesus on the street after he
falls and she runs to Him. There is a flashback of Jesus falling
as a child and the anguish Mary felt as she tried to protect
Him from the pain. Here Gibson captures the raw emotion of a
mother’s love for her child. This emotion is conveyed
throughout the movie in Mary right up to the end when she holds
the body of Christ at the foot of the cross. This is also a
powerful piece of imagery – the Pieta – the grieving
mother holding her dead son. Michelangelo, in what may be arguably
the greatest work of sculpted art – The Pieta - captured
the same pain in stone 500 years ago.

As for the framing
of the film and the various scenes, each could be a painting
in its own right. In a manner similar to Zefferelli’s
Jesus of Nazareth, Gibson provides the viewer with a series
of moments – still shots, so to speak – which then
come alive with action. Each event - Christ in the garden during
His agony, the scourging at the pillar, the crowning of thorns,
His embracing and carrying the cross and the crucifixion –
all are meditations of the sorrowful mysteries of the Rosary
and each is a “picture” itself for the viewer to
contemplate.

In the same vein,
each one of the Stations of the Cross comes to life in The Passion
of the Christ. Catholics will recognize the vignettes including
Veronica wiping the face of Jesus and Simon carrying the cross.
In one of the more telling moments of the film, Simon declares
to the crowd that he is the innocent man forced to carry the
cross of this criminal. Yet by the time Simon reaches the top
of Calvary, he realizes that Christ is the innocent man and
that our sins are the cause for these events. We relate to Simon
because many times in our own lives we are “forced”
to carry the “cross” of unemployment or health disorders
or family crises. We do not want to be burdened with these sufferings.
Yet after bearing our cross, we learn more about who we are
as persons and how we are there to help others through their
difficult times.

Having read a number of reviews since the movie was released,
I am of the opinion that many reviewers did not understand the
significance of much of the symbolism, such as the blood, or
the whole notion that sin causes so much destruction to our
lives. The recent bombings in Spain and Iraq should bring home
the message that human beings are capable of terrible actions
toward other human beings. The last century was the most violent
in the history of mankind. When juxtaposed with the purpose
of Christ’s suffering and death to redeem mankind, there
had to be the blood. Only this blood was a cleansing blood.
This blood was the blood of the Passover lamb covering the lintels
and doorposts of those who would be saved. This blood was the
blood of the New Covenant, which would be poured out for remission
of sins. Indeed the Book of Revelation speaks of the saints
whose robes were washed in the blood of the Lamb. As if to remind
us of the preciousness of His blood, there is the scene during
which Mary is on her hands and knees wiping up His blood after
the scourging. The symbolism is profound as it is stark and
troubling.

There are those
who could not or will not get beyond the violent treatment of
the story, the sadistic guards, the angry crowds, the mockery
of the trial. Part of that may be their nature. Part of this
may be their fear. I know one gentleman who could not stomach
the film and not because he does not know or love the Gospels.
He is a fine man whose daily life reflects a kindness toward
His fellow man that many would do well to emulate. He just could
not handle the violence.

So it is important
that we return to the initial point of this article, that where
people “are” in their lives will color the way in
which they encounter this film and everything that the film
may signify. It may reflect their own prejudice and the extent
of their hostility to the message conveyed. On the other hand,
they may relate very much to the stated purpose of the film.
A person will see what he or she wants to see. So if the person
is bound and determined to see anti-Semitic images in the film,
that individual will read this Gospel story as such.

The truth is, the
average moviegoer will leave the showing haunted by a powerful
film that asks the viewer some fundamental questions about life
and the nature of man’s relationship to God. Thus, the
movie’s most important role in today’s vapid celebrity
obsessed society may be to ask, “What’s it all about,
Alfie?” If during this time of Lent, people begin to ask
themselves if they believe in God and in His word, perhaps they
may begin to reform their lives, take up their own cross daily
and follow after Him. That reawakening would be the greatest
return on investment for Mel Gibson and for us all.

John
Jakubczyk is a lawyer and President of Arizona
Right to Life. He has been a frequent speaker on life issues
throughout the country.